Thank you, OM !
On Jul 1, 12:19 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
> “What is " cosmic consciousness?" What is our understanding of the
> experience, of cosmic consciousness, or the direct perception of the
> knowledge of its true nature?” – vam
>
> I looked back a little vam…perhaps not enough.
>
> First, IF one is attempting to find an ‘understanding of the
> experience’ that is to be known by ‘us’, one is going down the wrong
> path. At least, IF said understanding is rooted in words and concepts.
> Now, the direct perception of the knowledge of its true nature is more
> like what it is. Of course, this doesn’t arise in a brain thinking and
> reacting all the time…there isn’t enough ‘space’ for it to do so. And,
> in this case, such an ‘arising’ is in itself nothing other than direct
> apprehension. In such cases, words fail. Thus, mu overall use of
> negative theology. And, in this case a simple analogy of we can’t tell
> another what salt tastes like nor what the color blue is like to see.
> In the same way, only even in a larger sense, consciousness cannot be
> put into words…
>
> I’m guessing that when one adds a word to consciousness, cosmic in
> this context, it is an attempt at pointing towards some specific
> aspect thereof. My guess again is that this is kinda like knowing
> everything all at once…including all thoughts etc. Such a state has
> been known for millennia. Those who have experienced it have written
> to their best ability about it. Not making great personal claims in
> the area, I would refer anyone interested to the study of the original
> writings of such people.
>
> As an aside, in such a state, one does know all right now. How else
> could it be? When the noise in our heads subsides and equipoise is
> achieved, one is on the path. This doesn’t mean that words are not
> part of consciousness though. The are…just in a different sense than
> most people believe and think they are.
>
> There are examples of a coherent praxis intact today. This along with
> a cornucopia of charlatans.
>
> On Jun 30, 9:22 pm, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > What is " cosmic consciousness ?" What is our understanding of the
> > experience, of cosmic consciousness, or the direct perception of the
> > knowledge of its true nature ?
>
> > Request you to have a look through previous posts on this, OM, for
> > more of the context.
>
> > On Jul 1, 2:39 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > "...OM, I need to hear you on this, if you may..." - vam
>
> > > Not quite keeping up these days, perhaps if you frame your question
> > > and state it simply for an old man? ;-)
>
> > > On Jun 29, 10:06 pm, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Tinker, clearly you seem to be out of these depths Molly speaks of. If
> > > > so, frame your question, and state it simply.
>
> > > > No where did I find Molly implying that you have " to accept that "
> > > > Molly was " in some way superior."
>
> > > > On Jun 30, 7:58 am, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > No, I don't understand that Molly.
> > > > > I do very well understand, "there is no it or that to the
> > > > > *experience*."
> > > > > Am I supposed to accept that you are in some way superior because your
> > > > > *experience* has it and that specifics?
>
> > > > > peace & Love
>
> > > > > On Jun 29, 8:10 pm, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > do you not understand that the its and thats in the quoted sentence
> > > > > > are referring to what predicates them?
>
> > > > > > On Jun 29, 8:10 pm, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > "there is no it or that to the experience."
>
> > > > > > > and then
>
> > > > > > > "I am experiencing myself as everyone and all that is and all that
> > > > > > > will be and knowing it at once, without boundary or overload."
>
> > > > > > > peace & Love
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 29, 11:40 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > From my experience of cosmic consciousness, Vam, there is no it
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > that to the experience. I am experiencing myself as everyone
> > > > > > > > and all
> > > > > > > > that is and all that will be and knowing it at once, without
> > > > > > > > boundary
> > > > > > > > or overload. Like unlimited dimension to experience. No
> > > > > > > > object or
> > > > > > > > subject because there is all time and no separation between the
> > > > > > > > mortal
> > > > > > > > and eternal. I think that you are right when you say we have
> > > > > > > > limited
> > > > > > > > language to discuss the notion. I don't think that we are
> > > > > > > > seeing
> > > > > > > > through the pin hole, or seeing THE whole, I think at that
> > > > > > > > point, I am
> > > > > > > > whole.
>
> > > > > > > > On Jun 29, 12:33 pm, Vamadevananda <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > And what IS that, Molly ? As THAT, how does IT see itself as
> > > > > > > > > ? What
> > > > > > > > > is in it 's AWARENESS ? Does it have desires, and the
> > > > > > > > > tendency to
> > > > > > > > > act ?
>
> > > > > > > > > We individuals, from THAT reference, are merely looking
> > > > > > > > > through a pin
> > > > > > > > > hole. We do see something, but what we see is not the whole.
>
> > > > > > > > > I am only trying to take our discussion forward, the way I
> > > > > > > > > know. I
> > > > > > > > > very much would like to listen to what you may choose to
> > > > > > > > > share. The
> > > > > > > > > paths are many.
>
> > > > > > > > > I would like to invite OM on this matter, if he favour us.
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 29, 4:43 pm, Molly Brogan <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > all we will ever know at the same time for all time... or
> > > > > > > > > > ...knowing
> > > > > > > > > > (and being) everyone and everything that ever was and ever
> > > > > > > > > > will be and
> > > > > > > > > > all that is...
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Jun 28, 8:09 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Isn't that cosmic consciousness, Vam?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 28, 6:24 am, Vamadevananda <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Jim, really speaking beyond mere more terms and
> > > > > > > > > > > > thoughts, I do not
> > > > > > > > > > > > even know how the dog derives many, many times more
> > > > > > > > > > > > from the bone I
> > > > > > > > > > > > discarded as nothing ! The fact is empirical. But do
> > > > > > > > > > > > I understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > it ? I do not know.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > The other day, a journalist academic analysed racism
> > > > > > > > > > > > and opined : We
> > > > > > > > > > > > are not racists. Just that some among us are ignorant
> > > > > > > > > > > > and, hence,
> > > > > > > > > > > > display their prejudices which seem racist. That, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > found, was a mere
> > > > > > > > > > > > explanation of racist behaviour. It was irrelevent to
> > > > > > > > > > > > the question :
> > > > > > > > > > > > Are we racist ?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that alongwith science, which indeed we might
> > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > everything of, we need to know the answer to such
> > > > > > > > > > > > questions, which is
> > > > > > > > > > > > what I am afraid we ALL will never know ALL at the SAME
> > > > > > > > > > > > TIME, for ALL
> > > > > > > > > > > > TIME.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 28, 1:20 am, retiredjim34 <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking back over recent decades it seems clear that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we (mankind) is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > coming to know, in a scientific sense, more and more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > about more and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > more, and faster and faster. Will there ever come a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > time when we will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > know everything about everything?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I’ve asked a number of people this question,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and all say “no.” But it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > seems to me that the correct answer is “yes.” Why?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > First, I’m talking about knowing all the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > scientific laws governing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the physical universe – nothing more, nothing less.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The physical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > universe is immense, but finite. Science has long
> > > > > > > > > > > > > assumed that the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > laws governing our small bit of it are universal;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > they apply
> > > > > > > > > > > > > everywhere in the universe just as they apply here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Given then that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the physical universe is finite, it would seem that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the laws governing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it are also finite. And as we come to know them here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > faster and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > faster, at some point it would seem that we will know
> > > > > > > > > > > > > everything about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > everything.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This also seems to me to be consistent with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > what Einstein and others
> > > > > > > > > > > > > have long sought – the ultimate theory of everything.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (This effort is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > well described by Brian Greene in his book The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Elegant Universe.) If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > knowing everything were obviously not possible,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > surely this group
> > > > > > > > > > > > > would never have begun pursuing that ultimate theory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > How might we tell when we are approaching the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > point where we know
> > > > > > > > > > > > > everything? I expect the growth of knowledge is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > gaussian. As we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > approach knowing everything the rate of knowledge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > growth will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > gradually slow. So by monitoring this rate of growth
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we should be able
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to predict when we will know everything. Right?- Hide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
